Benwiggy1
Joined 28 August 2024
Latest comment: 20 days ago by Benwiggy1 in topic August 2024
August 2024
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to De gustibus non est disputandum, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- FFS. I have cited the source. Can you pinpoint exactly what you don't like? Benwiggy1 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Benwiggy1, you correctly cited a source, which refers to the primary source (which is fine to quote with the reference, and is appreciated), and then provided your own commentary on it. However, you’ve added your own interpretation, which counts as original research. If your interpretation is backed by the reference you used, please ensure you include the specific reference each time. If not, it qualifies as original research and should not be used. Best regards, AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So merely citing the work again would be sufficient, in my summary of the context? Benwiggy1 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Benwiggy1 I took a screenshot to highlight the issue, and everything marked in red is original research. You found a source from 1628 that uses the sentence, so you can certainly include it with a brief statement, like "Mr. [Name] uses the sentence in the book [Name] in 1628" simply describing the source in a general manner. However, you claim that this was the first occurrence of the sentence (without providing a source for that claim) and then proceed to interpret the source you found. While you can add the source itself, the interpretation you provide isn't supported. There's no source you provided that confirms it's the first time the sentence was used or validates your interpretation of it. It doesn't mean that it's not the first time it was used or that your interpretation of it is wrong, but that you can't add those informations since they are not to be found in reliable sources. So far, you just added a primary source, and thus have to keep it generalistic and very descriptive. It's not against you or whatever, it's just that we don't work like that on WP, which is an encyclopedia, and thus has to rely on reliable sources (most preferrably secondary/tertiary sources, even though primary sources are accepted as long as they are included in a very generalistic view). AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an interpretation, it's a summary of the Latin words I've provided.
- If I wrote this on my own website, and then copied it here and cited it, would that be OK? Benwiggy1 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Benwiggy1 If you have a website that is not a blog and is reliable (meaning dedicated to Latin or the relevant subject, for example), you could use that to support these claims. However, it's usually not advised to use your own works on WP, as it can be seen as self-promotion, which you can probably understand. I suggest you bring these points to WP:TeaHouse, where they are more knowledgeable about helping new editors and can explain these things better than I can. I mostly fight against vandalism on Huggle, and this is clearly not vandalism, so I think they can assist you much more effectively than I can, especially since English is not my primary language. Overall, I wish you a warm welcome here and good luck in your future WP endeavors. AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Really, primary sources are less acceptable than tertiary sources? Benwiggy1 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you tidy up the formatting of the references, please. I think I've broken it. Thanks. Sorry. Benwiggy1 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Benwiggy1 I took a screenshot to highlight the issue, and everything marked in red is original research. You found a source from 1628 that uses the sentence, so you can certainly include it with a brief statement, like "Mr. [Name] uses the sentence in the book [Name] in 1628" simply describing the source in a general manner. However, you claim that this was the first occurrence of the sentence (without providing a source for that claim) and then proceed to interpret the source you found. While you can add the source itself, the interpretation you provide isn't supported. There's no source you provided that confirms it's the first time the sentence was used or validates your interpretation of it. It doesn't mean that it's not the first time it was used or that your interpretation of it is wrong, but that you can't add those informations since they are not to be found in reliable sources. So far, you just added a primary source, and thus have to keep it generalistic and very descriptive. It's not against you or whatever, it's just that we don't work like that on WP, which is an encyclopedia, and thus has to rely on reliable sources (most preferrably secondary/tertiary sources, even though primary sources are accepted as long as they are included in a very generalistic view). AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So merely citing the work again would be sufficient, in my summary of the context? Benwiggy1 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Benwiggy1, you correctly cited a source, which refers to the primary source (which is fine to quote with the reference, and is appreciated), and then provided your own commentary on it. However, you’ve added your own interpretation, which counts as original research. If your interpretation is backed by the reference you used, please ensure you include the specific reference each time. If not, it qualifies as original research and should not be used. Best regards, AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)